berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 25,922
- 21,868
- 2,320
On Thursday, the Supreme Court takes up a deceptively simple legal question that happens to be one of the most consequential of the second Trump era so far: Can district court judges block executive actions throughout the whole country?
The use of so-called nationwide injunctions has been controversial within legal circles for years, but President Donald Trump’s second term has brought the practice to the forefront of American politics. Many of the administration’s signature initiatives have been blocked or temporarily put on hold as a result of nationwide injunctions, and Trump officials have expressed outrage and indignation at the notion that lower court judges can stymie their work — despite the fact that Trump and White House officials like Stephen Miller often sought or championed such injunctions against the Biden administration.
The oral arguments were prompted by a series of injunctions blocking Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship, though it is unclear whether or to what extent the justices will address the underlying merits of the executive order, which have been roundly rejected by every court and virtually every independent analyst that has considered the matter.
Partisan politics aside, the legal question about injunctions is a legitimately tricky one — even among experts with similar political outlooks.
To hash out this debate, we’ve convened two experts — both liberals, and both ardent opponents of Trump’s political program — who sharply disagree about nationwide injunctions. (The term, as we discuss, is a slight misnomer; the key legal question is whether courts can grant “relief” that applies to parties who are not litigating before them.)
So........the regime is being hypocritical. Imagine my surprise. I doubt conservatives had a problem with this ruling from a district court judge being enforced nationwide.
:watermark(cdn.texastribune.org/media/watermarks/2023.png,-0,30,0):focal(0x517:3000x2003)/static.texastribune.org/media/files/ac08176086bfa2ce5a0e1904b4e544a5/Alamo%20Abortion%20Clinic%20KC%20TT%2029.jpg)
www.texastribune.org
All that aside, there's quite a bit at stake here. If there are valid legal arguments to be made on both sides it seems like a fait accompli as to who will prevail with a SC packed with ultra conservatives.
The use of so-called nationwide injunctions has been controversial within legal circles for years, but President Donald Trump’s second term has brought the practice to the forefront of American politics. Many of the administration’s signature initiatives have been blocked or temporarily put on hold as a result of nationwide injunctions, and Trump officials have expressed outrage and indignation at the notion that lower court judges can stymie their work — despite the fact that Trump and White House officials like Stephen Miller often sought or championed such injunctions against the Biden administration.
The oral arguments were prompted by a series of injunctions blocking Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship, though it is unclear whether or to what extent the justices will address the underlying merits of the executive order, which have been roundly rejected by every court and virtually every independent analyst that has considered the matter.
Partisan politics aside, the legal question about injunctions is a legitimately tricky one — even among experts with similar political outlooks.
To hash out this debate, we’ve convened two experts — both liberals, and both ardent opponents of Trump’s political program — who sharply disagree about nationwide injunctions. (The term, as we discuss, is a slight misnomer; the key legal question is whether courts can grant “relief” that applies to parties who are not litigating before them.)
Loading…
www.politico.com
Trump and allies celebrated court orders against Biden they now claim are ‘tyrannical’
Loading…
www.cnn.com
So........the regime is being hypocritical. Imagine my surprise. I doubt conservatives had a problem with this ruling from a district court judge being enforced nationwide.
Federal judge in Texas suspends FDA approval of abortion pill
Federal judge in Texas suspends FDA approval of abortion pill
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo could potentially upend access to medication abortion nationwide.
www.texastribune.org
All that aside, there's quite a bit at stake here. If there are valid legal arguments to be made on both sides it seems like a fait accompli as to who will prevail with a SC packed with ultra conservatives.
